Sources for a consensus? I thought this was already common knowledge, but okay. Try van den Hove (2003); Oreskes (2004); and Kintishch, Eli (2009). I'm not asserting the consensus is right, only that there is a consensus. To me, the data are more important.

It's your use of terms like overwhelming that caused me to be curious as to just how many scientists there were that composed this "overwhelming concensus". Hence my query.

Quote:

From a scientific perspective, I see this as a more accurate term and as a strength of science that it's willing to accept conclusions provisionally. You should be more worried if the scientific consensus was unwilling to change or adapt with better data and understanding.

That's one way of spinning it. Frankly, I think that as the term "global warming" was becoming too controversial a moniker, they opted for another term. Science adapted, but more to the political realities than the scientific ones.

Quote:

Yes. I am. I would, however, point out that, given your rhetoric above which irrationally criticizes the provisional nature of science, your own bias is clear. Since it is, I'm curious: what motivates a bias against the premise that climate change is happening or is accelerated by human activity?

Nice piece of rhetoric yourself. I'm not irrationally criticizing the "provisional nature of science", but don't buy the spin for the name change either. I don't state anywhere that the climate is static, so you're making quite a leap.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman